U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

87–855 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–92] 

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 25, 2014 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVE GIACHETTI, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Military Personnel Overview ..................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 ........................................................................................ 19 

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014 

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, U.S. Army 

Cox, Lt Gen Samuel D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force 

Moran, VADM William F., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel and Deputy Chief 

of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education), U.S. 

Navy 

Murray, Sheryl E., Assistant Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 

Wright, Jessica L., Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Department of Defense 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B. .............................................................................. 62 

Cox, Lt Gen Samuel D. .................................................................................... 107 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 25 

Moran, VADM William F. ................................................................................ 84 

Murray, Sheryl E. ............................................................................................. 138 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 23 

Wright, Jessica L. ............................................................................................. 27 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Charts: Monthly Impact of PB15 Proposals on Military Members with 

Specific Family Sizes .................................................................................... 171 

Statement of The Fleet Reserve Association on Military Personnel Policy, 

Benefits, and Compensation ........................................................................ 157 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 183 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 181 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 181 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 187 
(1) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 25, 2014. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:17 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing will come to 

order. Welcome to a meeting of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

This subcommittee hearing will examine military personnel 

issues in the Armed Services Committee, including force drawdown 

plans, military health programs, military compensation programs, 

and other personnel policies and programs. Today the subcommittee will turn its attention to the important issue of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force that has experienced almost 13 

years of persistent conflict, beginning with the attack on our country on September the 11th, 2001, by jihadists who have declared 

war on America. 

The military is now facing the largest drawdown and most draconian budget reductions since the end of the Cold War. The budgetary requirement for the Department of Defense to significantly 

reduce spending calls for a leaner and more adaptable force that 

impacts virtually all defense personnel activities. The President’s 

budget substantially reduces ground and Air Force end strength 

and slows the growth of compensation and personnel benefit programs for all service members, shifting spending to other programs. 

Our focus will include actions the services have taken to create 

efficiencies in personnel programs to include pay and compensation, along with the policies and programs that still need to be examined to successfully continue down a path of fiscal responsibility 

without undermining the readiness of the All-Volunteer Force at a 

time of unprecedented instability and threats to America from 

across the world. I am also concerned about the manpower reductions that all services will undertake and how they will employ voluntary and involuntary separation measures to achieve those reductions, and how they will reduce the non-deployable populations 

in their services. 
2 

The subcommittee’s goal today is to better understand how the 

Department of Defense will balance the budgetary realities of today 

and the future with the readiness and morale and continued success of the All-Volunteer Force. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me first offer Congresswoman 

Susan Davis, from California, an opportunity to make her opening 

remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 23.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also wanted to welcome our witnesses today, Ms. Wright, 

General Bromberg, General Cox, Admiral Moran, and Ms. Murray. 

And thank you all for being here. 

We know that you are going to suspend your statements, I understand, but I am certain that we will cover many, many of those 

issues as we ask questions looking at how the proposed budget 

changes that are being sought would impact our military personnel 

and their families. That is of great concern to us. 

I remember, Mr. Chairman, a hearing several years ago when we 

talked, I certainly mentioned the difficulty that we will face as 

budgets decline and the knowledge that many difficult decisions 

will have to be made, and here we are. This is really the time that 

we are beginning to have to face many of those difficult decisions. 

I know that the services have made good-faith efforts to fund 

quality-of-life programs for service members and their families in 

the base budget as we move forward, but we are also concerned 

about what impact sequestration also could have on any of these 

plans in the future. 

We are faced with several significant proposed changes, from a 

limit to the pay increase required by the law, to an increase in outof-pocket costs for housing allowance, to significantly changing the 

military health care system, and removing appropriated support for 

our commissaries. Those are all a very big deal, and so we need to 

look at those in total. 

While the chief had indicated that the services don’t want to 

piecemeal this effort, it would seem to me that as we move forward 

here we are starting to do some of that as we look at these personnel programs. 

I am certainly sympathetic to the challenges that we are facing 

under sequestration, but we all, I think, want to better understand 

the reasoning and the business case analysis that went into these 

proposals and the actual impact that they are going to have on our 

families. In particular, I am concerned that these decisions did not 

necessarily take into full account of the views and the desires of 

our military personnel and their families. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 
3 

We are joined today by a dedicated panel consisting of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the personnel chiefs or their deputies of the military services to help us 

explore these issues. Now I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. 

Ms. Jessica Wright, Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness. Secretary Wright has recently returned from 

a long convalescence from a hip replacement surgery. 

And best wishes. Many of us here will be following your road. We 

wish you well. 

Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, U.S. Army, Deputy 

Chief of Staff, G–1. And sadly for all of us, this is General 

Bromberg’s last hearing before our committee, but our next two it 

is their first appearance, and we wish General Bromberg well on 

his future. 

Vice Admiral William F. Moran, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Personnel and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education. Lieutenant General Samuel Cox, 

U.S. Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower, Personnel, and 

Services. Ms. Sheryl E. Murray, Assistant Deputy Commandant for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 

I now will be asking unanimous consent to enter a statement 

from the Fleet Reserve Association into the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 157.] 

Mr. WILSON. Without objection, so ordered. 

Additionally, I would like to, due to time constraints of earlier 

voting, I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ opening 

statements be entered into the record, and then we will begin questioning in rounds of 5 minutes each until adjournment. 

[The witness prepared statements can be found in the Appendix 

beginning on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Hearing no objection, we will begin with me, and 

each one of us will be held to 5 minutes, including me. And we 

have got somebody above reproach—David Giachetti—who is a person known for timekeeping. So this is good. 

For each of you a question that I have, and that is that, do you 

see the additional out-of-pocket housing expense combined with the 

reduced less than ECI [Employment Cost Index] pay raise and an 

increase in commissary prices as a cut in the purchasing power of 

our service members? How do you expect these reductions to affect 

the day-to-day financial decisions and possibly the decision to even 

remain in the service that our junior enlisted members and their 

families will be facing? 

And we will begin with Ms. Wright. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First I would like to say that we believe that the quality of life 

of our military personnel is good. We also know that we need to 

slow the growth in compensation and benefits in order to balance 

that with our readiness and modernization. And so what this budget reflects is just that: a slowing of the growth—and that is why 

we are asking for a 1 percent as opposed to a higher percentage, 

so we can slow that growth of a military member’s pay—and then 
4 

also be able to bolster their readiness and bolster force—and bolster their modernization. 

At this point in time quality of life is good but quality of service, 

we believe, for our military member is lower. And so we would like 

to balance that for our service member. 

Mr. WILSON. And has it been determined—and I will get to General Bromberg—but has it been determined what the actual cost of 

each item that I—and you can get back for the record on this 

please—— 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. I will get back for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 181.] 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. But it may appear minimal, but to me 

it would be monumental if it was me. As I well remember when 

I was in the military, every expense was something that was a 

challenge, and so I would love to see an analysis. And you can get 

back with me on that. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. I will provide it. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And General Bromberg. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, sir. I think, you know, this is a holistic 

approach we have to take to this because what we can’t sacrifice 

is we can’t sacrifice readiness and we can’t sacrifice the quality of 

life. And one of the things we hold very dear—I think everybody 

would agree that we can’t afford to lower the training standard at 

the expense of something else, because the last thing you want to 

do is deploy somebody who hasn’t been trained to the level they are 

supposed to. I think that is the ultimate level of soldier care that 

we are after. 

So I think when we put all these different programs together on 

slowing growth I think we will step back, take a look at it holistically, balance that with readiness, and see if that is the right approach. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Admiral MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with General 

Bromberg. In my first 6 months on the job, going out and talking 

to sailors to get their feel for how things are going from their perspective, I hear more from them about their quality of service, as 

has been reflected here, in terms of their ability to do their job. So 

for us it is manning of the fleet, manning at sea; it is about providing them the equipment, the training, and the support so they 

are ready to do their job when asked. 

And of course, as you know, we are out there in a big way right 

now and so having that—having to trade, if you will, some of the 

personnel accounts on one side—pay and compensation for—in 

favor of those things that support training and readiness is part of 

our budget submission. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Admiral. 

General. 

General COX. From the Air Force perspective, clearly it is agreed 

completely with the slowing of the growth to make certain we can 

balance readiness, modernization, and the readiness together to 

make sure that we have all those pieces tied together. And we need 

to make sure that we look at it from a holistic—all of the factions— 
5 

this issue of pay and benefits—together to make sure that we get 

the right decision on this. 

Mr. WILSON. Ms. Murray. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Sir, we have had to make some very difficult decisions, as you know, as we work through this fiscal environment. I 

echo what my colleagues have said here on the panel. 

I would just emphasize, our Marines do enjoy a good quality of 

life. Our families love being in the Marine Corps family. 

Most of all, they want the right equipment to go to war, they 

want to be trained, and they want to be ready. And we have found 

that that is the overriding desire of our Marines. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. As I conclude, I would like to thank each of you, but 

I speak for myself, I am concerned about the quality of life for our 

service members, and particularly on the commissaries. This is a 

way forward, have a worldwide system where you have dependents 

and also spouses who can find employment, and I am very, very 

concerned. 

And I don’t want to pit anybody against each other. The primary 

function of our national government should be national defense. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Wright, I wonder if you could share with us a little bit—and 

I think the services are obviously here to respond, as well—how 

much input the services had in this decisionmaking and how. I 

mean, how was that done? 

And I am also interested in knowing whether the personnel surveys that are done—the role that they play. How much input, 

again, into the Comptroller and others did those services have? 

Could you share some of that with us? 

And I would ask the services, as well, you know, did they feel 

that sufficient time and effort, or how would you have done it differently? 

Ms. WRIGHT. The Comptroller led the charge for the budget with 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense, but it was negotiated with all of 

the services; it was negotiated with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs; it was negotiated with the service secretaries and with the 

service chiefs in multiple tanks that they have at multiple levels. 

So I was in contact all the time with the Joint Staff, and the 

Joint Staff in my particular realm was in contact with me. And I 

would say that is how, across the Department, that it worked. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Were there some areas that really jumped out—and 

as you said, it was negotiated—where were some of the key challenges? 

Ms. WRIGHT. These, from beginning to end, were very, very hard, 

laborious choices to make. And we had to make them based upon— 

based upon the money at hand and based upon what we needed to 

do to balance the entire Department, not to focus particularly on 

compensation and leave training and readiness out. But we needed 

to make a holistic approach so that, one, the family and the service 

member would not suffer on the side of compensation, but also the 

service member would be trained and well-equipped to do what we 

ask them to do and to provide them the ability to do their job. It 
6 

is a different environment, as you know, and it was just very, very 

difficult. 

So again, even in my realm, I have a young lieutenant as a son, 

and so would he like to get paid more? Yes. But also, would he like 

to be able to do the training that he is trained to do as an infantry 

officer? Yes. So that balance is hard to achieve. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Yes. Please. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Bromberg. 

General BROMBERG. We were included in the discussions at several levels, as Ms. Wright indicated. I think these are just extremely hard choices, and particularly for the Army as we are 

drawing down, potentially, with full sequestration, up to 420,000. 

That balance between end strength, modernization, and readiness 

is actually critical. 

So we are kind of in this box that we have to go to do something 

to slow the compensation. We don’t want to take money out of people’s pockets but we have to do something to maintain that readiness. 

As you are very well aware, ma’am, you know, we are still deploying people to Afghanistan as we speak. We just can’t continue 

this without some kind of change. And unfortunately, this is the 

areas we have to start looking at. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you speak to this quickly, and we will go to 

the admiral, in terms of the personnel surveys, what role they 

played? Are these areas that families have said, ‘‘We don’t—we are 

not as concerned about these areas particularly’’? 

General BROMBERG. We do use the surveys for feedback, and 

part of that challenges is the timing of those surveys because they 

just see what is in the paper, they don’t see how we are actually 

trying to restructure services and don’t know exactly the full extent 

yet. I think as we get to the full extent of what those real savings 

are or what those real expenses are we will have to watch that 

very carefully. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral. 

Admiral MORAN. Yes, ma’am. We also were very much involved 

in the process. 

And I think at the beginning when we were showed the long 

view of the unsustainable rate of growth in some of our pay and 

compensation packages, we all knew that it was necessary to slow 

that growth, and I think that has been well articulated here. But 

we do use survey data to help inform how we approach our arguments in those sessions and we have used that. 

But again, principally I think our sailors and their families are 

pretty satisfied with their quality of life, meaning their pay and 

compensation, but are concerned about the readiness-degraders 

that have been evident over the last year, and that has been the 

primary approach that we took in the budget. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General. 

General COX. Ma’am, like my colleagues, the Air Force certainly 

has been included in some of the discussions associated with in extraordinary times with the budget environment that we face, the 
7 

fact that, you know, last year we grounded 31 fighter squadrons. 

It is significant. 

We need to make sure that we are focused on readiness today 

and readiness for the future, as well. So we, like the other services, 

also use surveys to help us inform us as we are making decisions 

about what programs to keep or not keep. 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We now proceed to Congressman Walter Jones, of North Carolina. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And we all know that with this tight budget situation and the 

downsizing of all of our services to a certain point that this creates 

a very difficult time for those in uniform who have given so much 

for our Nation and their families because all of a sudden they are 

going from a military lifestyle to a civilian lifestyle. 

And I am going to start—this is for each one of you, but I am 

going to start with Ms. Murray because we have had several marines from Camp Lejeune to contact our district office in North 

Carolina concerned about the amount of time—or I should say the 

lack of time that they have had between being notified that they 

are going to be honorably discharged and the period of time that 

they have to go through the process to retire. And I would like to 

know, on behalf of the marines down in my district as well as the 

other services, give us an example of, if you can, of how that process works. 

Marine Jones have been notified, ‘‘You will no longer be serving 

in the Marine Corps. We thank you and this is the end of your 

service.’’ So then I have a process that I have to go through, and 

it is not an easy process, as any of us would know before the time 

is that you will be retired from the Marine Corps. 

Okay, if they still between—in that period of time, if they still 

have duties to do then it makes it very difficult for the individual 

and their families to make—to juggle everything that needs to be 

done. 

So would you tell us how the Marine Corps, and then if we have 

time, go through each service, as how you are handling this very 

traumatic time for that individual who has now been told, ‘‘we no 

longer need your service’’? 

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much for that question. I understand that that is traumatic for any military member who wants 

to remain and yet finds that they are going to go home. 

We have revamped our transition assistance program in the last 

year. It used to be an event that happened very, very soon before 

they left Active Duty and now they have up to a year to transition. 

But we do have—our commanders must ensure that the marines 

have an opportunity to participate in the transition assistance. 

And the program, by the way, we believe, has now—it is not a 

one-size-fit-all. There are four pathways. So those marines must be 

allowed to go to training and they have an opportunity to pursue 

a pathway that will take them to education, being able to use the 

post-9/11 GI bill. If they want to be an entrepreneur there is a 

pathway for that. I think you are probably familiar with those. 
8 

More specifically though to your question, the commanders are 

given the responsibility to ensure that marine has that opportunity. And if you have any specific examples that you want to give 

me I will be happy to look into that because that opportunity is 

critical for our marines. We value their service. We want to help 

them move on and be productive citizens in this great Nation. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

General COX. For the Air Force, one of the things that the secretary and the chief have committed to is before any involuntary 

separation you will be at least notified with 6 months of planning 

time, and then beyond that, 4 months from the date of the separation, directed separation, before you are out of the service. 

We have voluntary programs that precede all of the involuntary 

programs to make sure that that is in place. And then on top of 

that we also have a more robust transition program, just like the 

Marine Corps in many ways, with multiple pathways to make sure 

that the training is done. 

When it is time for them to do the transition course—when it is 

time to do the transition course, that is their place of duty. So we 

make sure that we have that, sir. 

Admiral MORAN. Sir, I agree with everything that has been said. 

The Navy is very much in the same position in terms of how we 

treat sailors that have been notified they are leaving the service. 

I would only add that I think we have all experienced some tremendous partnerships with organizations outside of the military 

services that are offering their assistance and help to place sailors 

and veterans who are looking for jobs in—on the outside and 

matching their skill sets to those jobs. There is a very robust effort 

across the services, and I think we are finding that to be very helpful for sailors. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

General BROMBERG. Sir, very much in line with the other services, with our policies the shortest amount of time anybody would 

have notification would be 6 months, as required by law, for those 

that are—have selected early retirement. For NCOs [noncommissioned officers] there is—by policy we have up to 12 months to 

transition. Transitions are in place of duty. Commanders run the 

program—great partnerships, as well. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, of 

Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Wright, General Bromberg, General Cox, Admiral 

Moran, and Ms. Murray, thank you for appearing today. 

You are all charged with the challenging mission of operating 

military personnel programs in a difficult time with the current fiscal climate. It was recently brought to my attention in my office 

that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy may be allowing service 

members to be honorably discharged without fulfilling their Active 

Duty service commitments [ADSC] in reference to the post-9/11 GI 

bill. 

Now, in the cases I have seen, service members apply to retire 

or separate and the services allows them to. Then 6 months later, 
9 

after these service members have been told, ‘‘You have met all your 

obligations and you are free to leave,’’ they receive a bill for the 

outstanding amount owed. Now, if they had just served a few 

weeks or maybe a month more this would not be the case, but they 

were not told that. 

I got some initial information from the Army about this matter. 

In fact, I have a name of a Guam Army soldier here who went 

through this and I think he only had a couple more weeks, if he 

had been told, and he now owes $84,000. 

I remain concerned that people are slipping through the cracks 

somehow. They may be case-by-case issues but I am fearful that 

there is a bigger problem that we need to address. 

So my question for General Bromberg and Admiral Moran is, 

what steps do you have in place to ensure that service members do 

not depart without fulfilling their ADSC? Were you aware that this 

was an issue and what are you going to do about it? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am. Thanks for that question. 

We do have a process in place for service remaining obligations 

upon out-processing that is supposed to be caught, and then we 

have a process for waivers. With respect to the post-9/11 GI bill, 

I have not heard of that specific case yet but I will take that for 

the record and I will get back with you and I will go re-look at our 

procedures. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 183.] 

I do know that we have had it for tuition assistance and other 

types of things that we control that we have granted waivers for, 

so I see those all the time, but I have not seen one for the GI bill 

so I will definitely follow up with you on that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. General. 

Admiral MORAN. Ma’am, I will do the same thing. I have been 

in the job 6 months, haven’t seen one of those come forward. And 

so I am concerned because you raised the issue and I am happy to 

get back to you on that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 183.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. And I can give you further information on this 

particular case. The results were another one that owes $104,000. 

And let’s face it: That kind of money a veteran can’t come up with. 

General Cox, you formerly served at Transportation Command so 

I trust you are familiar with the Global POV [privately owned vehicle] Contract, and given your current role, that you are familiar 

with how important the safe, efficient, and effective shipment of 

POVs is for the morale of airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines. So 

after 15 years of excellent service by the incumbent, a new contractor that appears to have little or no prior experience in this 

area will assume responsibility for the movement of privately 

owned vehicles for the military as soon as May 1st. 

Now, what is being done by the Air Force—and for that matter, 

all of the services—to ensure that there is no degradation in service 

or quality of life for our service members? 

General COX. Ma’am, I will have to take that one for the record— 

the specifics of the POV contract. 
10 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 184.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck, of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, all of you, for being here today. 

You know, I know you have talked a little bit about trying to balance the pay and compensation versus the readiness and training 

and equipment, and I think that is something that we are going 

to hear more of. I mean, we talk about not wanting to break—you 

know, keep the faith with our soldiers or promises made are promises kept, but keeping faith may take on a new definition as we 

move forward. 

Does it mean the old definition, which was primarily pay and 

benefits, or is it going to mean making sure that the person we 

send off to battle is appropriately trained and equipped? Or is it 

going to be someplace in between? 

My concern is that, you know, we have the Military Retirement 

and Compensation Modernization Commission out there that is 

supposed to be looking at this very issue. It is due back to Congress 

February of 2015 with its recommendations. 

But DOD [Department of Defense] is moving down a path of 

making changes prior to the information that is supposed to be collected by this commission. So whether it is changes in BAH [Basic 

Housing Allowance], the commissary surcharge, health care premiums and copays, or keeping a pay raise at something less than 

the EIC, it seems like DOD is wanting to make changes prior to 

getting the information from the commission. 

Why aren’t we waiting? Why aren’t we waiting for this group 

that is going out and holding stakeholder meetings, that is supposed to come back with an objective view of how we need to modernize compensation and retirement, before we start nickeling and 

diming all these programs? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Sir, thank you. So the decisions that we have made 

so far, or in DOD, we believe that we have the sufficient analysis 

and rigor to make the decisions on TRICARE, BAH, commissaries. 

We also understand that we don’t have the sufficient rigor to 

make the decision on retirement and we have sent four options to 

the commission, to Mr. Maldon, excuse me—for the retirement options. And so we haven’t submitted anything on a modernization or 

a change in retirement because we really need him and his commission to analyze what we have sent and/or come up with another 

option or recommendation that we can take a look at to modernize 

retirement. 

But on those decisions that are in the budget, we believe that we 

really have analyzed them and that it is appropriate to submit 

them at this time. 

Dr. HECK. So even though it is called the Military Retirement 

and Compensation Modernization Commission, you believe that 

you can go ahead with changes—I mean, would you consider health 

care benefits a form of compensation? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. That is—— 
11 

Dr. HECK. Is the surcharge to a commissary a form of compensation? 

Ms. WRIGHT. It is compensation and benefits, yes—— 

Dr. HECK. Okay. So yet, we, this body empaneled a commission 

to comprehensively look at these issues, to come back with recommendations, and what happens in 2015 when they come back 

and they have a whole host of recommendations that might be contrary to what is being put forward now, EIC at less or a pay raise 

less than EIC for the second year in a row? 

Ms. WRIGHT. And sir, if we have to tweak our recommendations 

or change our recommendations or if we find out what we have 

done is contrary to what we thought it would produce, we will 

change. I mean, our going-in proposition is to provide benefits to 

the service member and the family, but also to keep them trained 

and well-equipped so they can do their job. 

Dr. HECK. And I understand, you know, the position you are in. 

You are in that position because of what we have done in this body. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HECK. In full disclosure, I mean, we are the ones that gave 

you the parameters in which you have to operate. 

But in seeing that, that is why the Armed Services Committee 

went forward with putting forward this commission to try to come 

back with what would be a holistic approach from an outside 

group—I mean, let’s—you know, not doubting anybody’s rigor in 

analysis, but having an outside entity review this rather than a set 

of internal eyes on how changes should be made would probably 

offer a little bit more comfort to those that ultimately have to make 

these decisions when we vote here. 

And I am just concerned that you are moving down a path, 

whether it is with TRICARE premiums and copays, or changes to 

BAH, or other things that are considered compensation, prior to 

the committee’s getting the recommendations from the commission. 

So thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Heck. 

And we now proceed to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would like to follow up a little on what Congressman Heck has 

commented upon, that sort of some of the piecemeal decisions that 

you have made for, you know apparently good reasons, you know, 

you have suggested there was adequate rigor, you are very mindful 

of how to maintain the readiness of those who continue to serve 

and need to be prepared. But I think we all know that, given that 

the commission might come forward with slightly different recommendations, the lack of certainty creates a lot of turmoil in the 

families of those serving and of our service members. 

So it is just a note to you that sometimes a holistic approach 

works better, in which there is more clarity, more certainty, and 

everybody understands what the rules of the road are going to be 

for a discrete and certain period of time. 

Can you imagine that next year you might have additional proposals to make as to how to curtail some of the compensation benefits that you have already talked about? 
12 

Ms. WRIGHT. Ma’am, to paraphrase what the chairman has said 

is, instead of doing a Band-Aid approach, where we kind of do compensation around the edges—compensation and benefits—we wanted to go in with a holistic package to then understand that this is 

what we would like to do for compensation and benefits so we can 

take that balance and use it for readiness. 

And you just heard, excuse me, General Cox say that they 

grounded so many fighter squadrons in 2013. To bring that training up to a level where their readiness is sufficient takes a very 

long time. If we don’t use the money that we can get from that balanced approach then we will never get those fighter pilots to the 

proficiency that we need to get them to perform the mission that 

we are asking them to perform. 

So I know I keep saying balance, but unfortunately, there is— 

I can’t find a better word. It is that balance of quality of life and 

quality of service. 

I don’t know if anybody would like to add particularly how the 

readiness in 2013 affects the decisions we are making today. 

General BROMBERG. So as we are building readiness, for example, ma’am, we canceled seven combat training, seven rotations this 

year. It is really degrading the near-term readiness. And we are 

also inactivating units at the same time. 

So that friction that we are creating, it takes us so long to build 

that back. We have got to make these nearer-term savings in the 

next couple years, otherwise we are going to dig ourselves into a 

hole that we are just not going to be able to get out of well past 

2020. And then when the full sequestration goes into effect, we are 

going to dig deeper and deeper. 

So we see ourselves eroding current readiness today and mortgaging our future, and we think that is just really very concerning 

to us as we mortgage the future. We just know that we cannot do 

that, particularly when we look at the uncertain environment we 

are in today. If we are asked to do something else next year we 

cannot afford to send an unready unit. 

Admiral MORAN. Ma’am, all I would add to that is that we had 

several things we had to cancel or delay, like ship deployments and 

shutting down air wings or bringing them back to tactical hard 

deck, which is minimal proficiency, just to be safe. Those things 

have rippling effects in morale; they have rippling effects in readiness. 

So I would also add that last year we had authorities left for us 

to use other money to help offset some of those. We ran out of all 

that for this year, so that is why this year the choices for this budget were particularly hard. 

And so you ask why we go forward with those choices, it is because there is nowhere else to go, in our view. And so the trades 

had to be made, that balance across readiness and training with 

pay and compensation. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

General COX. Yes, ma’am, I have already highlighted the fact of 

the grounded squadrons from last year. You know, as we look there 

is—over the course of the last 13 years there is a wide spectrum 

of things that we have accomplished over in Afghanistan and Iraq 

and other parts of the world, other conflicts that have taken place. 
13 

There is a much bigger spectrum that we are expected to be able 

to manage, and that includes operating in a non-permissive environment. Those are the kinds of things that we have got to invest 

in to make sure that we are ready into the future, as well. So that 

balance, as we have talked about at length here, is really important. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Ma’am, thank you for the opportunity to comment 

on that. 

I would echo everything that we have said here. For the Marine 

Corps I would add reset is significant based on our many years at 

war. Our equipment reset is critical. Our Commandant recognized 

we can’t wait for a few more years; we must support these initiatives that have gone forward. 

And I would also add, recruiting and retention is very high in the 

Marine Corps. We have today many, many packages, requests from 

marines who want to reenlist. 

They know. They read. They understand what is happening and 

they are making a decision. It is a tough one for all of us. They 

want to stay. They want to serve. They want to bear the title ‘‘Marine.’’ 

And so we are not having any problem today—we watch that 

carefully, but we are not having any problem today recruiting and 

retaining the force we need for the future. Thank you. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So the gist of it really is that the near-term exigencies of maintaining readiness, the fact that you felt you had 

sufficient reliable information to make some of these piecemeal 

changes, forced a decision that you may yet be forced to revisit once 

the commission comes back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott, of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. And sit here 

and I know Americans are scratching their heads that we are trying to balance between promises we made to veterans and equipping and training our men and women in uniform, and yet we can’t 

get the votes to get rid of free cell phones up here, and it is just— 

that is the perfect example of us having our priorities out of order 

I think. 

But I thank you for your service and I am proud to represent 

both Robins Air Force Base and Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, 

and I am concerned about the impact of the cuts not only on our 

uniformed personnel but on our civilian workforce. Obviously the 

people that prepare the equipment for the warfighter play a valuable and important role in sustaining the missions. 

I believe there has got to balance. I think we need our organic 

capabilities and I think we need our private contractors to provide 

weapon systems for us. 

But our civilians as a part of the workforce—the depots, the arsenals, and the other roles that they play in management and acquisition—some proposals were put out a couple of weeks ago that 

said that we would just arbitrarily eliminate 15 percent of the civilian workforce, and I am extremely concerned about these arbitrary 
14 

cuts the way we did sequester and the effect that they would have 

on readiness. 

If that arbitrary cut were put in place, do each of you believe 

that it would jeopardize readiness to just do an across-the-board 15 

percent reduction in the civilian workforce in the depots and the 

arsenals? And what would happen to the acquisition and the procurement process if we just did an arbitrary 15 percent across-theboard cut? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Sir, I will tell you as the chief personnelist, I really, 

truly value our civilian employees, whether they work in the Pentagon or whether they work outside the District of Washington. 

And we could not do as a military what we do without our civilian 

employees, and truly, without our contractors. But again, that is 

the personnel pie that makes our DOD work. 

Without a lot of rigor in analysis I couldn’t tell you what a 15 

percent salami-slice cut would do. I personally don’t believe in a salami slice—yes sir, you—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am, 15 percent might be closer to a ham than instead of a salami. 

Ms. WRIGHT. It may be closer to a ham, yes sir. Fifteen percent 

is a very large—a large portion. 

And some will say that during this period of protracted war we 

have increased in our civilians, and we have. That is just a math 

issue. We have. 

But we have also increased programs and policies and benefits 

to our military members that require those very good civilians to 

do their job, to maintain the ships, to maintain the tanks. So from 

a personnelist standpoint and a DOD perspective, I think our civilians are truly worth their weight in gold and we need to be very, 

very circumspect of how we manage them. 

I will let the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am, if I may, I am down to just over a minute, 

I would like to go to General Cox just because of my representation 

of the Air Force base. 

The cuts to the civilian workforce, just 15 percent across the 

board, what does that do to depots and to the readiness? 

General COX. Sir, as you have highlighted, many of the things 

that you addressed in your statement or comments—you know, 

that the acquisition process, the contracting, the, you know, fixing 

airplanes, launching airplanes, our civilian workforce is critical to 

make all that happen. A 15 percent cut across the board for the 

United States Air Force would be something like 27,000 civilian 

personnel let go. It would have a significant impact for United 

States Air Force. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Brad Wenstrup, of Ohio. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here and taking on these difficult 

tasks. 

One of the things that I think that would be extremely difficult 

in your jobs right now is involuntary separation. As was mentioned, I know marines and soldiers and airmen, seamen, they all 
15 

are proud to wear the uniforms that they wear and many of them 

do not want to separate. So you have the unenviable task of involuntary separation in a lot of cases. 

So for example, I am familiar with the qualitative separation 

program and the Officer Separation Board, but could you take me 

through that, how you are dealing with these separations that 

aren’t willing, especially? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, sir. I think the first thing is that we 

value all the members’ service—officer, NCO, and down to the lowest private. Everybody’s service is valued, and we are trying to do 

this in the most transparent way. 

So for example, for the Officer Separation Board, even the 

SERB—the early retirement board for the colonels and lieutenant 

colonels—every colonel and lieutenant colonel was counseled by a 

general officer before that board met and they were given an option 

to voluntarily retire with additional time that would give them 

more time if they were selected before they even—that board even 

met. 

The same thing for the noncommissioned officers. They are notified ahead of time well in advance of when that is going into effect. 

They have a chance to review their files. And then for the NCOs— 

for the 1,100 NCOs we have selected over the last 3 years, those 

NCOs will be given 12 months to transition from the time they are 

notified they have to retire or separate. 

And we also offer between those between 15 and 20 years of service, if they are selected for separation, the option to go ahead and 

ask for early retirement as well, and we have takers of that. 

So a transparent program, personal counseling, looking people in 

the face, and with the feedback we have had to date so far has 

been that that is what is most important, so somebody sits down 

and talks to them and it is not just somebody faceless where they 

get a piece of paper in the mail. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I appreciate that effort. 

If the other branches would like to—— 

Admiral MORAN. Sir, fortunately for me, we are in a position 

where our end strength matches our force structure through the 

fiscal year defense plan, so we do not foresee having to use involuntary measures as far out as I can look. So we did a significant 

downsizing earlier last decade and have leveled off and project that 

we will remain in that position for the next 5 years at least. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. So yours are more through natural retirement—— 

Admiral MORAN. Natural retirement. I think the biggest challenge for us, much like the Marine Corps, is that we have got a 

lot of sailors who want to stay, so high retention is our greater 

challenge. It is a good place to be. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Yes, sir. 

General COX. Sir, we certainly have had very high retention 

rates over the course of the last decade. As we bring the force 

down—it is approximately 16,000 on the active force—16,700 by 

the end of fiscal year 2015—we have very much focused on the voluntary programs first prior to any involuntary. 

In addition to that, we provide incentives for individuals to take 

the voluntary programs and so it is an approximately 25 percent 
16 

add to whatever the normal separation would be. Commanders are 

involved throughout the process to make sure that folks are informed about where they sit relative to their peers and then whether they should make that family decision to separate for the voluntary or wait and look at the involuntary separation. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. MURRAY. I would just add to what we have already heard 

here. I think that for the Marine Corps we are really emphasizing 

voluntary attrition. 

I will also say that while we have done 2 years of selected early 

retirement boards for our lieutenant colonel and our colonel population, we have seen that there is behavior modification with that. 

So it is—that first group it was a shock, and we did all the sort 

of things that we have talked about: making sure they knew ahead 

of time, offering them the opportunity to choose their retirement 

date, to take the time to do that. 

But we found that our lieutenant colonel and our colonel population realize now we are in a new, different world here and they 

are making the decisions. So this last year’s board that we had we 

selected very few. 

We had a requirement to select very few because many of our officers now want to go on their own choice. They have had a wonderful career and they want to leave on their own terms. And that 

has worked very well for us. 

And we are now just this year starting to look at our E–6, our 

staff sergeant population, and our majors, who prior could have 

served until 2020. Again, we are making the tough decision. If they 

are twice passed over for selection we will now consider them as 

well for continuation board. 

But we are only looking at those who would have the opportunity, if selected, to go home to participate in the early retirement 

program. So in everything that we do our Commandant is emphasizing: keep faith—what that means to us is no rifts, no sending 

someone home who has been on their A-game without having the 

opportunity, for instance, as the early retirement program. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, I appreciate the thoughtful approach to 

that situation. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Wenstrup. 

And I have one more question really for the record, and that is 

for Ms. Wright, and that is, the Department is proposing to reduce 

the commissary funding by $1 billion over the next 3 years. Approximately 70 percent of the appropriated funding goes to pay the 

employees, who are significantly military spouses and dependents, 

but allows the commissaries to provide goods at a cost plus a minimum surcharge, equaling about 30 percent saving for each family 

during the year. 

And my questions, if you could get back with me: How long will 

the commissaries now operate with the employees’ salaries coming 

out of profits? What do you foresee the 30 percent savings dropping 

to be? Although you have not directed any commissaries to be 

closed, depending on the reaction to reduced savings with the respect to volume of patrons in the stores, do you think this will force 
17 

stores to close and drive military families and retirees to off-base 

shopping? 

And if you will get back with me it would be fine. 

And, Mrs. Davis, did you have—— 

Ms. WRIGHT. I will, sir. Thanks. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 181.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And maybe for the record, as well, just—I think certainly on the 

TRICARE piece is big shift, big change, and I would like to know 

what kind of preparation is being done in the services to advise 

and to work with Active Duty as well as everyone who is affected 

by that for these changes that are being proposed. And again, these 

are not decisions that have been made but they are the changes 

that are being proposed and they have some—quite a bit of significance, particularly because it is a cumulative effect that we are 

talking about here and I suspect that the health care one is one 

that is certainly going to be felt. 

The chairman mentioned the commissaries, and I think that also 

is very important. It affects people differently depending upon 

where they live and how they utilize the commissary, but my suspicion is that this is not something that people identify on questionnaires as something that they would look forward to giving up. 

I don’t think this is—I think people love this benefit and I think 

that it makes a difference for them, and I suspect if—you know, 

that is going to be an issue moving forward and so we need to kind 

of understand that from their responses, as well. 

And then finally, I think just looking at the GI bill—the post9/11 GI bill—and the ramifications, perhaps, of transfer of eligibility rules and how that could impact people going forward and 

perhaps the fact that they would choose to stay in rather than 

leave the service even, you know, because of those transfer of eligibility rules—how does that have an impact? Do we need to look at 

those policies? 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 181.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

Anyone else? 

Hearing no further, the meeting is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 25, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 25, 2014 

(23) 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 25, 2014 

(157) 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 25, 2014 

(181) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Ms. WRIGHT. Our estimates of the impacts of the proposals on the monthly compensation of members are in the attached charts. [See page 4.] 

[The charts referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 171.] 

Ms. WRIGHT. Commissaries considered remote and isolated will remain open to 

support areas where access to a commercial grocery store is limited as will overseas 

commissaries. There are no plans to close any commissaries in the United States. 

Customer usage will determine whether or not any commissaries close in the United 

States. Customer savings at the commissary currently average 30% over commercial 

grocery stores and will decrease. The projected savings will fluctuate as they do in 

the commercial sector but we believe they will be substantial enough to retain customers. 

This is a benefit that we take seriously, and we are trying to mitigate the effects 

of any changes that can impact our Service members and their families. [See page 

17.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Ms. WRIGHT. We believe the current Post-9/11 GI Bill transferability policy is having a crucial, positive impact on military recruiting and retention efforts. In the less 

than five years since the Bill became effective, over 373,369 career Service members 

have transferred their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to over 805,000 family members 

and research indicates more than half of recruits cite educational benefits as one 

of their top reasons for entering the Services. The Department is also finding that 

many career Service members are extending their service commitment so they may 

share this benefit with family members. We believe these facts demonstrate the policy is successful on all levels—encouraging new Service members to join and retaining our most seasoned service men and women. Based on this assessment, the Department believes the current transferability policies are effective in supporting our 

recruitment and retention goals and no additional changes in rules or policies are 

required. We will continue to carefully monitor the usage and take rates on this 

benefit to ensure we continue on the right course. [See page 17.] 

General BROMBERG. Although the proposed TRICARE changes remain predecisional, we have provided implications of the proposed legislation to Congress 

and will continue to do so. If Congress approves these changes, we in the Army and 

the other Services will be extensively involved with the DOD in preparing other 

communications products to inform all beneficiaries of potential TRICARE program 

changes. 

The current proposal does not close down commissaries. The recommendation is 

to gradually phase out subsidies, but only for domestic commissaries not in remote 

areas. Commissaries as with other programs will be seriously jeopardized if we don’t 

have operational funds and the resources to be able to implement them. 

Section 3020 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes eligible Soldiers to transfer unused educational benefits to family members, pursuant to Secretarial approval 

and designed to serve as a recruiting and retention incentive. An exception is granted if separation is a result of force shaping or reduction in force initiatives. Soldiers 

separated under these programs may only retain the transferred benefits if the 

transfer was requested prior to selection and otherwise eligible to transfer benefits. 

This exception does not apply to Soldiers who retire or separate in lieu of consideration by a separation board. [See page 17.] 

Admiral MORAN. The Navy supports the changes to TRICARE contained in the 

President’s Budget, including initiatives to simplify and modernize the program 

through the Consolidated Health Plan, and update beneficiary out-of-pocket costs 

with modest increases. These changes are important to ensuring the delivery of a 

sustainable and equitable health care benefit. We do, however, recognize that the 

proposed changes, if authorized by Congress, will impact service members and their 

families, as well as our retired personnel and their families. 

However, I expect the changes to be relatively minor. Active duty service members 

and their families will have access to the same medical care they have now. Medical 
182 

care for active duty members will continue to be provided at no cost to the member, 

as will care provided at Military Treatment Facilities to family members of active 

duty personnel. The payment structure will incentivize family members to use 

health care services that minimize cost to taxpayers. Based on estimates from the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), co-payments for family 

members of junior enlisted personnel (E4 and below) will be less than those for senior personnel. 

To date, we understand that the Department of Defense has been actively communicating with the Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) and Military Service Organizations (MSOs) on the importance of the proposed changes and their impact on 

TRICARE beneficiaries. [See page 17.] 

General COX. Though the proposed TRICARE changes are still pre-decisional, the 

Air Force is prepared to engage with the Defense Health Agency’s (DHA) Beneficiary and Education Support Branch to provide Service-level input to the DHA’s 

system-wide TRICARE marketing plan and educational materials. The Air Force 

Medical Service will provide information to beneficiaries we serve through installation resources, including: Military Treatment Facilities, Family Readiness Centers, 

Health Care Consumer Advisory Councils, base newspapers, Retiree Affairs, and 

town hall style meetings led by health benefits advisors. 

The commissary is certainly a valued benefit which offers up to 30% savings to 

our service members who frequently use them. The proposed reduction to commissary funding will lead to a reduction of annual direct commissary subsidy, which 

will increase expenses for service members who utilize them, but there will still be 

the ability to provide a good deal for service members and retirees. 

Based on information submitted by the Office of Secretary of Defense to Congress 

in its 2013 report on Post-9/11 GI Bill, I do not believe a policy review for this program is required at this time. The Report states, that although the new program 

is only 4 years old, there are strong indications the program has already had a profound, positive impact on recruiting and retention. 

As of September 25, 2013, over 373,369 career DOD Service members were approved to transfer their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to over 805,000 family members. 

This brought to DOD well over 800,000 additional man years of committed service 

through transferability of education benefits. 

Also, in the 2013 Recruit Survey Report, conducted by the Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies, an overall 53 percent of recruits cited educational benefits, not limited to Post-9/11 GI Bill, as among their top reasons for entering the 

Services. [See page 17.] 

Mrs. MURRAY. Currently, Congress is evaluating whether to enact DOD’s compensation reform proposals. If and when that occurs, the Marine Corps will ensure 

our Marines are educated and advised on what changes will be made, who is affected, when and how the changes will be implemented, and why the changes are 

necessary. 

The Marine Corps surveys Marines on a regular basis for many purposes, to include retention and overall quality of life. In these surveys, information is often 

gathered to determine which benefits influence Marines’ decisions to remain in the 

Marine Corps or are most important to their quality of life. These surveys show differences amongst Marines on what benefits they value. For example, a 19-year old 

Lance Corporal may be concerned about getting the best training to succeed in combat, while a Major with 15 years of time in service may be more focused on the 

health care for his family. Although a specific survey on DOD’s proposed compensation reforms has not been conducted, we know that Marines value their commissary 

benefit. However, the larger point remains: each of DOD’s proposed reforms is necessary to slow the growth of compensation in order to preserve readiness. If any 

should prove overly detrimental to recruiting, retention, or the overall quality of our 

force, they can be reversed. 

Recruiting and retention within the Marine Corps remains high due, in part, to 

benefits such as the ability to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill. With this said, we are finding that many otherwise qualified 

Marines have encountered challenges gaining access to this critical benefit. As a result of a technicality within the transfer law, elections to transfer entitlement to 

educational assistance must coincide exactly with reenlistments. Those who have 

completed at least six years of service and reenlisted for four additional years, but 

did not simultaneously elect to transfer benefits at time of reenlistment, are not eligible to transfer. We believe that this result is not consistent with the spirit or intent of the statute and warrants a technical change to clarify. The clarification of 

38 USC 3319(b) would specify that individuals who have completed at least six 

years of service and enter, or have entered, into an agreement to serve at least four 
183 

more years are eligible to transfer entitlement to educational assistance. [See page 

17.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

General BROMBERG. The Army uses both an on-line notification system and a 

manual record check system when Soldiers depart the service to ensure they are 

aware of their service obligation remaining for various benefits, including the Post9/11 GI Bill. When a Soldier elects to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, they must 

use the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) webpage in the milconnect portal. Before a Soldier submits his/her TEB request from the webpage, he/she is required to 

read the TEB acknowledgement statement, which informs Soldiers that, if they elect 

to transfer benefits, they will incur an additional service obligation. Soldiers are also 

advised that failure to complete their service obligations may result in recoupment 

of benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The TEB service obligation 

is listed in milconnect as the ‘‘TEB Obligation End Date’’ (OED) for all components. 

Once approved, the OED is listed below the Soldier’s TEB status, and on the approval form provided for Soldiers to print for their personal records. Each Army 

component uses a different personnel system to annotate the OED. For the regular 

Active Army, the OED is recorded in the Total Officer Personnel Management Information System for officers and in the Enlisted Distribution Assignment System for 

enlisted. For the Army Reserve (USAR), the OED is not included in any USAR database, but Human Resources Command (HRC) is developing a process to load the information into an HRC database, for which the USAR will have access to review, 

including Army Reserve Regional Support Commands and others, as required. For 

Soldiers in the Army National Guard (ARNG), the OED is listed in both the Guard 

Incentive Management System and the Director’s Personnel Readiness Overview 

system. 

Regular Army Enlisted Soldiers receive general TEB counseling from Retention 

NCOs during routine reenlistment counseling. They can obtain additional information regarding the TEB OED through the TEB webpage, and the TEB Approval 

Form within the milconnect portal. Regular Army Enlisted Soldier (E–1 to E–6) 

records should be reviewed at the installation-level Military Personnel Division, and 

the Regular Army Enlisted (E–7 to E–9) and Officer records are reviewed by the 

HRC Enlisted and Officer Separation Branchs to ensure the TEB service obligation 

has been fulfilled prior to issuing separation orders. The ARNG allows each of the 

54 states and territories to implement their counseling requirements for the TEB 

service obligation prior to issuing separation orders. 

Regarding the ARNG Soldier who retired before fulfilling his obligation, and later 

received a bill from the VA: The Soldier was counseled in March 2013, prior to his 

retirement date of June 2013, about the remaining service obligation, and the possibility that VA could create an overpayment action based on the benefit months used 

by his daughter if he were to leave prior to the completion of the required service 

obligation. If the Soldier desired to eliminate any possible future debt from the Department of Veterans Affairs, he could have ceased his out-processing from the service and continued to serve until his obligation was satisfied. Once the decision was 

made to continue out-processing, the Soldier was required to acknowledge online via 

the TEB webpage that he understood that the future to remain in the Armed Forces 

for the period required may lead to overpayment by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

On December 1, 2013 HRC’s Army Continuing Education Division began automatic e-mail notification to all Regular Army and USAR Soldiers at the time their 

TEB request is approved; the notification states that the Soldier’s TEB request has 

been approved, and reflects his/her incurred service OED. [See page 9.] 

Admiral MORAN. Enlisted personnel serve under contractual obligation for specific 

periods of time, with an expiration of service date established under the contractual 

agreement. Officers serve on indefinite commissions at the pleasure of the President. These contractual obligations and commissions are the mechanisms by which 

Sailors are required to fulfill a legal obligation to complete their service. However, 

there are a number of circumstances, within law and policy, which provide for members to be released, voluntarily or involuntarily, prior to completion of their obligations. 

At the time a member applies for a transfer of education benefits (TEB) distribution under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, members must commit to a period of additional 

obligated service. Department of Defense Instruction 1341.13, of May 31, 2013, stipulates that if an individual transferring entitlement fails to complete the required 

period of obligated service, the amount of any transferred entitlement that is used 
184 

as of the date of such failure shall be treated as an overpayment of educational assistance and, shall be subject to collection by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

When applying for TEB, each member acknowledges, in writing, responsibility for 

any overpayment due to failure to complete any term of obligated service. That said, 

overpayment does not apply to Sailors who do not complete the period of obligated 

service due to death, or discharge or release from active duty or the Selected Reserve for: 

• non-service-connected pre-existing medical condition; 

• hardship as determined by the Secretary of the Navy; or 

• physical or mental condition, not a disability, which did not result from willful 

misconduct, but interfered with the performance of duty. 

Also, a member transferring benefits is considered to have completed his or her 

service agreement as a result of being discharged for a disability or a reduction in 

force or force shaping. 

A member, who does not complete the required obligated service and, as a result, 

is subject to overpayment, may apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals, following guidelines in VA Form 4107, entitled, ‘‘Your Rights 

to Appeal Our Decision’’. 

Navy does not currently remind Sailors who separate or retire prior to completing 

obligated service associated with Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) under the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, that they may be subject to recoupment by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that they may apply to the VA for waiver of indebtedness, 

but I have directed my staff to develop and implement such policy and procedures 

as soon as possible. [See page 9.] 

General COX. The Global Privately Owned Vehicles Contract (GPC) III solicitation 

requires the awardee to provide the same, and in many cases improved, services regarding in-transit visibility, shipment time, on-time arrival rates and terms regarding in-transit damage. Performance is monitored by Contracting Officer Representatives assigned to each Vehicle Processing Center (VPC) worldwide. We do not anticipate any degradation of performance; however, the Government has a variety of 

remedies available to address the failure of a contractor to perform as contractually 

required. [See page 10.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 25, 2014 

(187) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. The Air Force plans to reduce end strength by nearly 20,000 personnel by the end of FY19, a number which could increase depending on whether 

full sequestration returns in FY16. What is the expected cut to the Air Force acquisition workforce? How would any potential reduction impact your ability to conduct 

the procurement of next generation aircraft and IT systems? How are you ensuring 

that you retain the right mix of high-demand, high-skilled officers and civilians? 

General COX. The Air Force is aware that it must maintain the right mix of highdemand and high-skilled military officers and civilians in mission critical occupations. As the Air Force undergoes a reduction in end strength, we are only targeting 

specific career fields through force management programs for those positions identified for reduction in the FY15 President’s Budget. 

The STEM personnel we rely on to maintain our technological edge are a prime 

example of high-demand, highly-skilled professionals. Our decisions regarding the 

right mix of officer and civilian scientist and engineers are guided by Bright Horizons—the Air Force STEM Workforce Strategy, which is now in its second generation as recently signed by Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James and Chief of 

Staff General Mark Welsh III. A primary strategic goal of Bright Horizons 2.0 is 

for the Air Force to appropriately apply force management practices to build and 

maintain a highly competent, diversified and agile force at the right grade levels, 

at the right time, and the appropriate locations. 

For example, although we’ve had to take a share of force management cuts in our 

cadre of acquisition officers, we’ve been able to reduce the impact to scientists and 

engineers by appropriately balancing the cuts in non-technical career fields such as 

acquisition program management. 

In addition, when we do identify overages of science and engineering officers in 

the acquisition workforce and laboratories, we’re looking for opportunities to crossflow and retain these personnel elsewhere in the Air Force in other career fields 

that will benefit from their STEM degree, such as our growing need for space and 

cyber professionals. 

Finally, as the Air Force reduces the number of military personnel, we’re working 

to use tools the Congress has provided to maintain the quality of our civilian workforce, such as Expedited Hiring Authority and the Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Development Fund established by the FY08 NDAA Sec 852 to attract separating 

military personnel to continue service as a civilian Air Force acquisition workforce 

member. 

Æ